JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General I/c., for the State, assisted by Ms. K. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner was appointed as the State Chief Information Commissioner of the State of Arunachal Pradesh on 13.10.2006, and he had retired from the said post on 28.02.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act for short) and has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to salary and allowances at par with the Chief Election Commissioner of India. In this regard, it was submitted that section 8 of the Election Commission (Condition of Service of Election Commissions and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 (1991 Act for short), provides for “other conditions of service”, and that the petitioner was entitled to all such benefit, which was enjoyable to the Election Commission. It was submitted that section 8 of 1991 Act had contained reference to the Supreme Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1958 (1958 Act for short) and therefore, the other service conditions of the State Chief Information Commissioner were at par with that of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

3. It was submitted that as per the 1991 Act and 1958 Act, the petitioner was entitled to rent-free accommodation, but he had not availed official accommodation in course of his service. By a notification No. AR-13/2007 dated 30.03.2015, published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette, the Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (State Chief Information Commissioner Salaries, Allowances and other Conditions of Services) Rules, 2015 (“2015 Rules” for short) was brought into force from 12.10.2006, and that under the said Rules, the petitioner was entitled to house rent allowance (HRA for short) at the rate of 30% of basic pay at par with the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. However, as the same had not been paid from 13.10.2006 to 28.02.2011, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. It has been submitted that an Office Memorandum no. 2(13)/2008 E-II(B) dated 07.01.2009, was issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, on the subject of “Decision of the Government on the recommendation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission relating to re-classification of cities/ towns for grant of HRA”, thereby providing that though cities were placed in lower classification, but the Government employees would retain the higher classification as per OM dated 29.08.2008. Accordingly, it was submitted that notwithstanding that Itanagar was classified as ‘Z’ class city, but by virtue of OM dated 07.01.2009, the petitioner would be entitled to draw HRA at the rate of 30% of basic pay. It was submitted that the revised HRA was 30% for ‘X’ category city; 20% for ‘Y’ category city; and 10% for ‘Z’ category city, which included Itanagar. It was submitted that however, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, vide Office Memorandum no. FIN/E-II/08/2013 dated 27.08.2013, and O.M. no. FIN/E-II/08/2013 dated 30.09.2013, retrospectively applied HRA at the rate of 10% of basic pay (band pay + grade pay + NPA wherever applicable) w.e.f. 01.09.2013, which was made subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions. In this regard, it was submitted that the denial of HRA to the petitioner was not sustainable on facts and in law.

5. Per contra, the learned Advocate General has vehemently opposed the prayer made in this writ petition. The learned Advocate General has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by (i) respondent no. 3, and (ii) respondent no. 4. It was submitted that at best, the petitioner would only be entitled to HRA at the rate of 10% of ba